Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elder scrolls V

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Marasmusine (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elder scrolls V

Article about a new installment to The Elder Scrolls franchise. Author removed prod-delete tag. Violates WP:CRYSTAL: the only article that provides evidence of an upcoming sequel doesn't even offer anything other than "it's happening". Unless more significant and substantial info about the upcoming game gets posted pretty soon, this article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there needs to be anything else done here, now that the article has been userfied per Drawn Some. TheLetterM (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously the article has to be deleted. However, a very young person has spent a lot of time writing the original version. I would suggest moving it to his or her user space and encouraging him or her to work on it to have it ready for when the game is released in 2010. That way everybody's happy and the editor doesn't get discouraged. Drawn Some (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Drawn Some. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Title obviously is real, however not much is known on the game or plot as of this point from what I can find so the article should be removed and created a later date when more details are known. Afkatk (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. People shouldn't take an open wiki for just its word. Articles to show evidence from more trustworthy sources or they won't be worth much. That isn't possible yet. This article should be usefied: moved to be one of the author's personal pages, present and editable but not marked as an article (not showing up on default searches, for example) until it's ready for prime time. --Kiz o r 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete (or redirect if such an action violates the GFDL). While, clearly, a lot of effort has been put into this and we should not violate WP:BITE, it clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS and therefore fails to establish notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure crystalballery. I'm indifferent on userfication for something like this, as it's only two sentences. MuZemike 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. --Kiz o r 18:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it has only a couple of sentences, but if you look back in the history it had a significant quantity of content. Drawn Some (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. MuZemike 18:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but to clarify, I meant OK as in I won't oppose userfication, but make sure the title is capitalized properly. MuZemike 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead and userfied the article and left a message on the editor's talk page so as far as I'm concerned the article can be deleted and this discussion closed. Drawn Some (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he's cool with it, then sure, there's very little need for discretion or debate for a decision. --Kiz o r 19:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. TheLetterM (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.